Canon 50D and 24-105 F4 L series lens

Jellyhead188

Jellyhead188

Suspended / Banned
Messages
21
Name
Emma
Edit My Images
No
Hi - I am thinking of upgrading my Canon 350D to the 50D with the 24-105 lens. I am a photographer doing mainly children's portrait shots at home with flashes. I am torn between the 5D mark 2 and the 50D but I really don't think I need the features of the 5D for what I do and can't really justify the extra expense!

Has anyone got any experience with this combination?

Many thanks.

Emma
 
ah fab thanks, my hubby assures me it will make a massive difference to my work (I'm a bit of a tecky phobe!). I really want one now!
 
For studio and portraiture I would recommend the 5dII, the 50d is better suited to sports due to its crop factor and is set up for the purpose with it's AF.

My ideal combination is a 50d for the crop and AF and a 5dII for low light and portraiture.

Money is probably the greatest issue here, the 50d would do but the 5dII is the better option if it can come under budget
 
I support Stuartg, having upgraded from a 400D to a 50D only 2 months ago, there is a huge difference in quality. I am just venturing into the L series lenses so cant comment on this one, but using my 17 -85 IS on both cameras, the improvement in IQ is marked quite significantly.
Good luck with your choice.
Trev
 
I should add to my post that I have not used the 5dII, but see it's potential advantages in your situation.
 
The 5DMk2 is an outstanding portrait camera, but it will show up deficiencies in poor glass, so you really have to budget for a lens or two too, married with the 24-105L it is a fantastically versatile combination and will give you a great walk around lens which is more than suitable for portraiture too.

But like many things, it all comes down to budget.
 
Just another option for you to throw in the mixer.

Don't forget you can pick up a mint 5D Classic these days for around £825 from the for sale forum.

If I was doing mainly portraits I'd get one of those like a shot. Doesn't have the bells and whistles features wise as the Mkii has but as you say yourself you don't really need them.

The IQ is fantastic. The low light performance is there too.

You could pick up a 5d classic and a 24-105L and still have plenty of change from the £2100 that the mkii would cost you.
 
If portraiture is the main subject matter then I'd get a 5Dmk2 and keep the 350d as a second body
 
sym_richard said:
24-105 is not a good choice for portrait. For cheaper cost, 50 F1.4, 35 F2, 85 F1.8 would be better
Click to expand...

I disagree, on a full frame body it is very useful, allows versatility in framing in a short area which a prime may not, the range between 70mm & 105mm offers a good perspective for head and shoulder shots and the range from 35-70mm offers options for shooting full length and groups.

many portraits are taken at an aperture of f4 or smaller to ensure that the DOF covers the subject and as most studios have reasonable light the requirement for a wider aperture is not really required.

For me the perfect portrait zoom lens would be a 35-135L f2.8 but as that lens does not and probably will never exist, I stand by the fact that the 24-105L can do a very admirable job and covers the required ranges well!
 
sym_richard said:
24-105 is not a good choice for portrait. For cheaper cost, 50 F1.4, 35 F2, 85 F1.8 would be better
Click to expand...

I can't say I agree with that, not for children and baby portraiture.
I've got an 85mm but use the 24-105 on a 1D mkIII for virtually all my studio shoots with youngsters. The flexibility of the zoom really helps with toddlers and shooting at the long end means you're not shoving a lens in a babies face for close ups compared to the 50 or 35mm
 
5d classic might be worth a look? could pick up that plus a 85mm f1.8 and a 135mm f2 for about the price of the 5d mk2.
 
Mark Cleghorn uses the 5D with a 24-105mm for everything under 70-200mm range and if it's good enough for him..............

I've got a 5D classic and I've got the 24-105mm and I've also got the three primes mentioned.

The benefits of the 24-105 are that you have the ideal range and the IQ is brilliant. The disadvantage is that it's an f4 lens. Shooting with flash it's not a problem at all. I like to shoot in natural light though and that's where the primes really open up shots that the f4 would struggle to get.

If you are going to continue to use flash I would not hesitate to go down the route already mentioned. A 5D classic with a 24-105mm is a cracking combination. It was sold as a kit for a very good reason. If you need higher ISO for low light shooting the 5D MkII is impoved and then the primes really should be your weapon of choice.

Hope that helps.
 
5D + 24-105 is awesome landscape/portrait combination. You will appreciate the shallower DOF the FF can offer - especially when using a fast glass.
 
I would have to agree with POAH here and go with the 40D over the 50D. I personnally would go for the 24-70 f2.8 instead of the 24-105. As with the primes mentioned above the 24-70 f2.8 gives you a really nice bokeh and just makes the portraits pop out of the photo a lot more.

Simon
 
I would have to agree with POAH here and SAuchterlonie and and go with the 40D over the 50D.
 
richpips said:
I would have to agree with POAH here and SAuchterlonie and and go with the 40D over the 50D.
Click to expand...


Why the 40D over the 50D ??

I ask as I have the 40D, and whilst it's a damn good camera, I'd like to understand why the 40D would be better over the newer, more advanced, 50D ?

For portraiture a 5D or a 5D MkII would be my preferred weapon of choice.

Steve
 
Jelster said:
Why the 40D over the 50D ??

I ask as I have the 40D, and whilst it's a damn good camera, I'd like to understand why the 40D would be better over the newer, more advanced, 50D ?

For portraiture a 5D or a 5D MkII would be my preferred weapon of choice.

Steve
Click to expand...

The 50d crams ,more pixels into the same space as the 40d's pixels. Which does not seem to improve the IQ. The 50d might be newer but it is more considerably more expensive than the 40d, yet offering little extra for the money.
 
50D only really has an increase in MP over the 40D nothing else worth while. it has a hefty price increase for basically nothing.
 
Depends chaps, but then we seem to continously have these arguments.

The price difference between the 40d and 50D isn't really that much - the price of a really cheap lens. For that you get higher ISo, more Mp with really crisp images, better screen on the back.

Not sure why you question the IQ, as with CT's custom funtions settings turned off from noddy mode it makes a huge difference and is much better than the 40D. The only time I would suggest the 40D over the 50D would be for budget reasons.

For the original poster, if all you want to do is portrait then a 5D would be excellant. The 24-105 L lens is fantastic and hardly ever off my camera
 
I have the 50d and a 24-105 and its pretty much glued to the camera. I upgraded from a 17-85 and it was my first L lens. The build quality is fantastic and it takes excellent pictures, i have no complaints whatsoever with the combo.
 
I guess a 5D with 24-105 would be the best combination for portrait.
And can use it for family shots as well
 
The 50D is pushing the limits of the sensor which causes problems on the outer edges of the frame and its a good hunk of money more expensive than the 40D. Don't know if Kerso can still supply then 40D or not, but it would be cheaper again through him. If you're shoot portraits I would rather buy a 40D and grip for the same money as a 50D.

I'd still go with the 24-70 too......its a little hard to get used to at first with the shallow DOF, but it is the DOF that makes the photos pop.

Simon
 
15MP sensor has very high pixel density, which means diffraction becomes and issue from around f/7-8. Most lenses are sharpest around f/8, while best primes are at f/5.6. The sharpness is lowest in the corners, and this will be magnified at 15mp. Btw, at the same density FF would be 38MP! 1 Ds3 has 21MP which converts to 8mp Aps-C.
You can downsize 15mp to 10-12 mp and regain the sharpness at pixel level, but not the dynamic range. The overall image sharpness will be very slightly better from 50D over 40D.

So to put this into perspective:
get 50D if you need more reach, and use PRIMES (200L, 135L, 100/2, 85L, 85/1.8, 50L, 35L, 24L) or 70-200L.
With 24-105mm 40D will give about the same resolution. It is also excellent on 5D. Most zooms will be fine on 40D.
5D either one - only L zooms or better primes.

Always use RAW converter, and optimise image very carefully (sharpness, vignetting, exposure, highlights, WB, CA correction, noise reduction, crop, dust removal). Lightroom can even fix photos taken with 17-85mm IS, while JPEGs look terrible.
I'd say processing can make far more difference than 40D vs 50D. So if you haven't done so pick a powerful converter and familiarise yourself with it. I have submitted interpolated photos from 30D to 16mp to Alamy and they were fine. So even your 350D is still very capable.
 
Diffraction affects the whole image, not just the corners.

And I don't get the idea that the 50D somehow makes lesser lenses look bad. It just makes really good lenses, when used at optimum aperture and with immaculate technique, show what they can really do.
 
SAuchterlonie said:
The 50D is pushing the limits of the sensor which causes problems on the outer edges of the frame...
Click to expand...

Really - which review did you read that on, the DP review one?

dpreview said:
"It appears that Canon has reached the limit of what is sensible, in terms of megapixels on an APS-C sensor. At a pixel density of 4.5 MP/cm² (40D: 3.1 MP/cm², 1Ds MkIII: 2.4 MP/cm²) the lens becomes the limiting factor. Even the sharpest primes at optimal apertures cannot (at least away from the center of the frame) satisfy the 15.1 megapixel sensors hunger for resolution. Considering the disadvantages that come with higher pixel densities such as diffraction issues, increased sensitivity towards camera shake, reduced dynamic range, reduced high ISO performance and the need to store, move and process larger amounts of data, one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that at this point the megapixel race should probably stop. One consequence of this is that the 50% increase in pixel count over the 40D results in only a marginal amount of extra detail.

We're by no means saying the 50Ds image quality is bad but it's simply not significantly better than the ten megapixel 40D. In some areas such as dynamic range and high ISO performance it's actually worse and that simply makes you wonder if the EOS 50D could have been an (even) better camera if its sensor had a slightly more moderate resolution. "
Click to expand...



OK I'm slightly biased as I have a 50D but I did upgrade from the 40D and haven't seen these issues with any shots I've taken.

The 50D did introduce the gapless micro lenses to increase the efficiency of each pixel.
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS50D/images/features/mlenses.jpg


The thing with the above review is that is was done on one of the first cameras with the settings straight from the box. The custom functions noddy settings that CT notified everyone about made a real difference.

That's the only bit I can find though. I'd suspect if the 50D had such a big problem it would be all over the net.

Cost I can't do anything about. If we all had the budget we'd all be running around with 5D mk2, a selction of 1D mk3's and the best L lenses :D
 
Byker28i said:
Depends chaps, but then we seem to continously have these arguments.

The price difference between the 40d and 50D isn't really that much - the price of a really cheap lens. For that you get higher ISo, more Mp with really crisp images, better screen on the back.

Not sure why you question the IQ, as with CT's custom funtions settings turned off from noddy mode it makes a huge difference and is much better than the 40D. The only time I would suggest the 40D over the 50D would be for budget reasons.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more I have both the 50D and the 40D and much prefer the 50D. The digic IV technology (same as 5D MK II) is improved and the layout of the menu is much simpler, not to mention the brighter LCD.

With regard to the original post, I would go with the 5D Mark II and the 24-105L glass if your budget will stretch, it's a fabulous camera for portraiture with good glass.:)
 
I read that test in DPReview quoted in post #35 above, and believed it. They are usually very thorough and accurate. It was one of the reasons why I didn't upgrade to a 50D and while I'm still not convinced the 50D is worth the extra for me, I do think that DPReview over stated their reservations on the noise vs pixels question (which is one of their hobby horses). What they say may be true in theory, but practise says a bit different.

First of all I do not think that Canon would ever produce a camera that was significantly worse than its predecessor in any significant way, and the evidence of real world use is that the 50D's high ISO performance is pretty damn good, and that folks like birders who really need the extra reach you can get from cropping the image (if you have a really good lens, which all the big Canon L primes most certainly are) find the 50D is a useful step in the right direction.

Now I've seen what the 50D can do, I wouldn't hesitate to say it's an all-round better camera than the 40D. It's still not quite worth the extra cost, for me, but I'm already saving for a 60D and I hope it has a similar, even better 15mp sensor :)
 
Yes, I owe a 50D and a 24-105L -- superb. Here's a few recent studio shots:

4658_80171093086_61261818086_1940845_1219273_n.jpg


4658_80171113086_61261818086_1940847_572609_n.jpg


4658_80171118086_61261818086_1940848_4261685_n.jpg


4658_80171128086_61261818086_1940849_7198640_n.jpg


Ignore the lighting, I was a complete n00b at lighting.
 
I think the basic issue a lot of people have with the 50D is a misunderstanding what the reviews are saying. I will be very brief (and vague!) here (got to rush out in a sec) but the gist of it is that, as far as diffraction is concerned, the resolution of the 50D's sensor is such that in a lot of cases it is now the quality of the image projected by the lens that is the limiting factor on 100% pixel-peeping image 'sharpness', rather than the limits of the sensor. Diffraction is a function of the lens, not the sensor. It's just that the sensor is now able to render a more accurate view of what the lens is showing it. Hardly a bad thing. Just means that decent glass won't be wasted on the 50D. b****r - gonna be late.....ta ta
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top